Year: 2009

Getting Halfway to the College Moon?

Eduflack Achievement gap, early college, High School, higher ed, Students

During his first official address to Congress back this winter (remember, trivia folks, it was not a State of the Union), President Barack Obama made the bold promise that, by 2020, the United States would have the highest percentage of college degree holders in the world.  Recognizing that postsecondary education is quickly becoming a non-negotiable for success in today’s economy (let alone tomorrow’s), it is a promise we need to back up.  And Obama did so recognizing that to get there, we need to turn out millions upon millions of additional college graduates on top of current levels.

So how do we accomplish that?  Improving high school graduation rates, particularly with historically disadvantaged students is a good first-step gateway.  Dual enrollment programs, where we help today’s students see they are capable of doing college-level work helps.  Boosting the number of first-generation college-goers is another.  But how about actually getting those students who enroll in college to actually earn the diploma?  That seems like a no-brainer.
Unfortunately, according to a new report released this AM from the American Enterprise Institute, it seems that a student enrolled at an institution of higher education has only a slightly better chance of earning a degree than an individual who stops at campus for direction, a t-shirt, or a restroom break.  According to AEI’s new study, Diplomas and Dropouts: Which Colleges Actually Graduate Their Students (and Which Don’t), only 53 percent of college-goers have a diploma six years after starting the process.  Don’t forget, college is intended to be a four-year endeavor.  So even when we give today’s students two extra years, only half of enrollees manage to actually gain that intended sheepskin.
The numbers get even scarier when you drill down.  For those postsecondary institutions with the least selective admissions criteria — or those dubbed “noncompetitive” institutions — only 35 percent of students graduate within six years.  Even among “competitive” schools, those falling in the bottom 10 are only graduating 20 percent of their kids in six years.
Not surprisingly, the highest graduation rates lie with the most competitive schools.  Grad rates decline as we move down the scale, from highly competitive to very competitive to competitive to less competitive to noncompetitive.
The AEI report presents top “honors” to 10 schools, identified as noncompetitive that scored the lowest when it comes to six-year graduation rates.  Mountain State University in West Virginia (18%), Bellevue University in Nebraska (18%), Heritage University in Washington (17%), University of Houston in Texas (16%), National American University of South Dakota (15%), American InterContinental University in Georgia (13%), Miles College in Alabama (11%), Jarvis Christian College of Texas (10%), Carlos Albizu University of Florida (10%), and Southern University in Louisiana, with a whopping 8 percent.  These schools were all found to be noncompetitive, with the lowest grad rates — a destructive combination.
For those who think money buys success, eight of the 10 lowest-graduating schools are private institutions, with the University of Houston and Southern University being the only public schools to make “the list.”
But we don’t want to just pick on the noncompetitive schools.  In those schools dubbed most competitive, we see a similar trend.  EIght of the 10 schools with the lowest graduation rates are private schools (Webb Institute, Reed College, Tulane University, University of Miami, George Washington University, Scripps College, Case Western Reserve University, Connecticut College, Occidental College, and University of Rochester.  The two publics with the lowest rates are both service academies — the US Air Force Academy and West Point.  For those two, we’d like to think that the standards outside the classroom are the reason for the lower-than-average grad rate among peers, and you don’t have a high proportion of students at Army or Air Force on the seven- or eight-year BA plan.  So let’s give the Air Force Academy and West Point the benefit of the doubt here.
What’s even more disturbing though, particularly when we consider the challenge issued by President Obama and current efforts to close the achievement gap in this country, are graduation rates on the campuses of our competitive Historically Black Colleges and Historically Hispanic Colleges.  For competitive HBCUs (33 were studied) the six-year grad rate is only 36.5 percent.  For IHHEs (30 schools studied), the numbers were slightly better, 44.3 percent.  The only bright spot (if you can dare call it that) in the disaggregation is that HBCUs are relatively level when it comes to graduation rates, with less competitive schools graduating 34.7 percent of their students and noncompetitive schools graduating 37.1 percent of their students, meaning a student at an HBCU has a relatively equal chance of graduating, regardless of the institution’s competitiveness classification.  On the flip side, with noncompetitive IHHEs, only 19.8 percent of students are graduating in six years.
What does all this tell us?  First off, if our goal is to increase the number of college degree holders in the United States, we need to start with the customers we have.  Forget the need to push more students onto the college path.  We first need to address the 47 percent of current pathwalkers we are failing.  There are no excuses for one’s change of earning a college diploma once in college to being the same as winning a coin flip.  Access is clearly not an excuse, and money certainly shouldn’t be.  We need to do a better job of finding out why these enrollees are not graduating, and then act (either institutionally or nationally) to reverse the trend and prioritize degree attainment over college going once and for all.  Despite what some may say, the postsecondary experience is not nearly as important as the credential.  We owe it to every student who passes through a college’s doors to make sure they leave with a degree.
Second, we need to take a much closer look at how we are serving our historically disadvantaged student groups.  Institutions are to be applauded for making more opportunities available to students of color and providing programs and institutions themselves to better meet student needs and expectations.  But competitive HBCUs should do better than one in three graduating.  And competitive IHHEs need to better than two in five graduating.  This is particularly true when the average competitive IHE is turning out grads at nearly double that rate.
But if the numbers tell us anything, it is that the college graduation problem is one that is color blind and income oblivious.  The real problem here is competitiveness and return on investment.  After decades of convincing every family that their child should go to college, we’ve literally build a college or university for every student.  As a result, the correspondence schools and diploma mills of the past have given way to noncompetitive institutions with open admissions and a come one, come all mentality.  For too many of those schools, the tuition check is the end game, not the diploma.  An enrolled student is a steady stream of income.  There is no incentive to graduate students.  Schools aren’t being held accountable for their graduation rates.  Perhaps they should, but they aren’t.  And that shows in the AEI data.
When he took office nearly half a century ago, President John F. Kennedy made the promise we would send a man to the moon.  As we’ve often heard, this was an audacious goal designed to spur interest and investment in the space program in general.  Obama has don
e the same thing, albeit with less fanfare and public enthusiasm, with his promise to be tops in the world when it comes to college degree holders.  With Kennedy, we couldn’t just go halfway to the moon and back.  It was all or nothing.  
The same is true for Obama’s college pledge.  We have 11 years to get to the postsecondary moon.  Only this time, we aren’t starting from scratch.  First order of business is getting those students who are already in the system graduated.  Improving that 53 percent grad mark to 75 percent gets us far closer to our goal.  
But if we are going to have postsecondary impact for decades to come, we need to take a close look at the product we are selling.  Noncompetitive schools with no accountability and little ROI hurt us all in the long run.  There is no getting around it.  Yes, every student needs some form of postsecondary education to succeed in the 21st century economy.  After all of these years, who knew we needed to say that education needed to bring with it a modicum of quality.  For those who say the accreditation process is too difficult or onerous, this data should give them a great deal of pause.  If anything we need to be tougher on our IHEs and expect more.  Otherwise, we may simply be sliding into a game of rock-paper-scissors to see if we earn our diploma or not. 

What Does Common Standards Mean to a State?

Eduflack AYP, national standards, NGA

For those wondering exactly what today’s announcement that 46 states and the District of Columbia signed on to the National Governors Association’s and the Council of Chief State School Officers’ effort to develop comprehensive common education standards (or national standards for those unafraid to exert the federal role in public education improvement), take a minute to check under the hood of this national standards ride we are about to buy, California style.

Penned by Cali Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Board of Ed Prez Ted Mitchell, and State Supe Jack O’Connell, the Golden State has put its name on the dotted line to “develop common core standards” and “participate in the international benchmarking efforts.”  No surprise, California seems to believe its current standards are likely the bar by which national standards should be measured, making clear the state “cannot commit to adopting [common standards] until we have determined that they meet or exceed our own.” 
The California brain trust has a few other ideas for those leading the common standards effort back in our nation’s capital.  Check out the full letter here: California Common Standards Letter
If this is the sort of non-commitment commitment we’re starting off with, we still have a few steps to go before we are asking our states and districts to actually adopt a common set of national K-12 education standards, complete with the assessments and accountability that need to accompany them.  Miles and miles to go, my friends, but we are taking steps forward.  

What’s in the Cards for 21CS?

Eduflack 21CS, national standards, STEM

In recent months, we’ve had a great deal of debate on the future of 21st century skills and their role in a public education system that focuses on accountability and quantifying student achievement on the core academic subjects.  This week’s announcement of planned national academic standards only further muddy the future of 21CS.

As Eduflack has written time and again, 21CS skills are an important component to 21st century learning, particularly if we are to give STEM education the emphasis and the due that it so richly deserves.  But as I’ve always looked at it, it is not about teaching 21CS as course content, it is about using 21CS as a delivery system for the ELA, math, science, and social studies that our students have needed, do need, and will need in order to maximize their K-12 experiences and be on a pathway toward real opportunity.  At the end of the day, 21CS is about how we teach, not what we teach.  For me, it is about ensuring that our current learning environment does not devolve into one where we are unplugging and deskilling our students.
But don’t take my word for it.  Check out what the folks over at the Partnership for 21st Century Skills are up to here.  For the next two weeks, are hosting a cybersummit on 21CS.  As of the kickoff this morning, they have more than 1,700 folks registered to at least take a peek at the current discussion and content around 21CS.  It may be worth checking out, particularly for those who may have their doubts.

The Slow March Toward National Standards

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, AYP, High School, high-stakes testing, NAEP, national standards, NGA

For months now, the education chattering class has been talking about the behind-the-scenes efforts by the US Department of Education to craft national education standards.  We’ve heard that Achieve was slated to deliver draft math and reading standards to Maryland Avenue by early summer, with plans for a thorough and robust debate leading up the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

In this morning’s Washington Post, Maria Glod reports that 46 states and the District of Columbia have signed onto the K-12 national education standards movement, offering “an unprecedented step toward a uniform definition of success in American Schools.”  The full story can be found here.   
The thinking here is a simple one.  In this era of AYP, it only makes sense that we have a single yardstick by which to measure student achievement, starting with math and reading.  For years now, we’ve heard how students are knocking it out of the park when it comes to state assessments (just look at elementary reading in Mississippi), but then we fail to see the progress when it comes to annual NAEP scores.  The common thinking is that some states have dropped their bars so low in order to demonstrate student achievement and student growth that some state tests have become complete irrelevant in determining actual student achievement and success.
So now National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers have brought together most of the states to help develop these common standards for academic performance.  Most states have already anted in.  The only holdouts, according to WaPo, are Texas, Alaska, Missouri, and South Carolina.  Their reason?  These Republican-controlled states are touting the need for local control of the schools, and national standards run contrary to local decisionmakers determining what is best for their local residents.
The current plan is to roll out “readiness standards” in July, benchmarks for high school graduates in reading and math.  Then folks would build out the grade-by-grade needs to reach those readiness standards.  It is important to note that the 46+ states have simply agreed to the process.  They would then need to agree to, adopt, fund, and implement the standards once they are developed.  So we are still a good ways away from national standards even being close to national policy.  Why?
First, every expert, quasi-expert, and member of the chattering class is going to want to get in on this discussion.  Everyone has ideas as to what should be in national standards.  Every political and ideological group will want to get in on the process, running the risk of taking a bold move and watering it down so much to appease all of the audiences that believe they should have a seat at the table.
Second, many will raise concerns that we are only addressing math and reading.  LIke AYP, this push is focusing on the corest of the core subjects.  But can we really have a true national standards system without addressing science, social studies, and foreign language?  In a month when NAEP is actually releasing national art education data (scheduled for June 15), can we settle for just reading and math?  Many an expert or an expert in training will call for a comprehensive system that addresses all academic subjects, worried that an initial focus on math and reading means we only value the two subjects and will only hold states and schools accountable on these two measures (much like we have with AYP).
Third, we need to give standards real teeth.  In many ways, national standards serve as a wish list for public education in the United States.  To put real power behind it, we need to develop and implement actual tests aligned with those standards.  Such tests seem to be the third rail of public education.  We fret about the costs, we worry about the quantitative and qualitative, and we struggle with the notion we are implementing another “high-stakes” test on our kids.  The end result?  We could end up with a lovely policy document outlining our national education expectations, but lacking a tangible way to transform that policy into instructional reality with real measurement and accountability.  National standards only work if we have one strong test that is implemented and enforced EQUALLY by all of the states.
Fourth, states actually need to agree to the final documents … and put them into practice.  In 2005, all 50 states agreed to common high school graduation standards, shepherded through the process by NGA.  At the time, every governor in the country agreed to a measure that called for grad rates to be calculated as the number of ninth graders who secure a diploma four years later.  We’re now four years later, and the majority of states have failed to actually implement the formula.  (In part because those who have have experienced a drop in their statewide grad rates.)  Former EdSec Margaret Spellings tried to institute the new grad rate through federal regulation, but the current talk about town is that EdSec Duncan will be turning back Spellings’ Christmas Eve Eve decision, leaving grad rate determination to the states.  So even if every governor in the country agrees to the idea of standards in principle, they all need to sign off on the final decisions and actually move them into practice, replacing the patchwork of states standards of various strengths and scopes with one common national standard.
Currently, the Nation’s Report Card — or NAEP — is the closest thing we have to national standards.  But as we take a look at the NAEP results, we see many a disturbing data set that must be addressed in developing national standards.  It stands to reason that NAEP measures for reading and math proficiency would be pretty close to national standards in the same subjects.  So what does it mean when slightly more than half of all U.S. fourth graders can score proficient or better on the NAEP reading exam?  What does it mean when only about a third of eighth graders are score proficient or better, and the best state in the union is clocking in at 43 percent proficiency on eighth grade reading?  And what do we do about the persistent achievement gap, particularly the 20-plus year problem we see in 11th grade math and reading?  How do we make sure that all students — even those from historically disadvantaged groups — are performing against the national standards and achieving?  When we set national standards, the goal needs to be all students hitting the mark.  We cannot and must not settle for a system where the majority of kids fail to achieve proficiency, and we still see that as a sign of a successful public school system.
Yes, Eduflack is a pessimist by nature.  But I also believe that today’s NGA/CCSSO announcement is a positive step forward.  In today’s transient society, with students changing schools and states as families change and jobs shift, we need some guarantees that a fifth grade education is the same, regardless of area code.  We need some promise that a high school diploma means the same thing, regardless of Zip code.  This is a non-negotiable if we are to prepare all students for the opportunities before them, particularly if we are looking for them to hold their own on international benchmarks such as TIMSS and PISA.
Obviously, the devil is in the details.  We need to get all states to overcome the notion of local control and embrace the guidance and framework of national standards.  We need to construct effective tests that move those standards into practice.  We need to move beyond just math and reading and ensure that all academic (and even those some would deem non-academic) are measured as well.  We need to give equal billing t
o elementary, middle, and secondary learning standards.  And we need to ensure that if all students are to be held to the same national standard, they all need to have equal access to the same educational resources.  That means national standards, if you will, when it comes to early childhood education, high-quality teachers, and other such measures.
But we are moving forward.  We just have to keep that momentum going, transforming challenges into opportunities and not allowing roadblocks to divert our attention (and subvert our public will) in the process.  If we believe that every student in the United States requires a high-quality, effective education, we need to measure every student with the same yardstick.  Quality and effectiveness should be universal, not subjective based on state borders.  National standards starts making that goal a reality.

We’re Building Schools After All

Eduflack Arne Duncan, charter schools, stimulus

When we first started off the debate on economic stimulus many months ago, well before ARRA was an acronym that held any real meaning (particularly in the education community), there was an initial thinking that stimulus dollars would be poured into school construction projects.  After all, such projects were “shovel ready” (hard to believe how quickly we’ve forgotten that adjective) and they were viewed as the best example of projects that could benefit from the immediate influx of funding, but wouldn’t require continued care and feeding over the years.

Then SC Gov. Mark Sanford threatened to use stimulus money to pay down state construction bonds, or not take money at all.  We shifted to talks about using dollars to pay for teacher salaries.  And soon we launched into our current discussion of “one-time” money, dollars going to student achievement-centric projects, no second round of ARRA funding coming, and many at ED scratching their heads asking why so many states are slow to get in their applications and receive part two of the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund money.  Surely, they are not content with the no-strings Title I and IDEA dollars they’ve gotten, and they’re not just sharpening their pencils waiting for the Innovation grants to be released.
It is a bit of an understatement to say there has been continued confusion as to how SFSF dollars are intended to be spent.  Despite the good intentions of Judy Wurtzel and others at ED, technical assistance and current guidance is still not providing the complete answers (or at least the answers the boots on the ground want to hear) as to what and how to spend the new federal dollars.  So last night, EdSec Arne Duncan released a letter to all chief state school officers explaining the current thinking on school construction and ARRA.
The highlights?  There’s $6 billion in school construction bonds to be allocated this year.  The feds are staying in the school construction biz.  Energy efficiency and “green” buildings are important.  Charter schools are treated as equals with traditional public schools.  There has been and will continue to be school construction and rehab money available from the feds.  The average layman or policy wonk isn’t necessarily supposed to understand the finer points of all this.  We have a bunch of new acronyms we have to learn, at least if we are going to talk about school building.
The full text of the letter follows below, courtesy of Fritzwire:

May 29, 2009

 

Dear Chief State School Officers:

 

I am pleased to inform you about the authorization of Qualified School Construction Bonds (QSCBs) and Build America Bonds (BABs) and the extension of Qualified Zone Academy Bonds (QZABs).  The authorizations provide Federal subsidies for public school improvement and modernization activities.  TheAmerican Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) makes QSCBs and BABs available for the first time, while extending and expanding the authority for QZABs.  QZABs provide funding for school repairs and renovation and certain other activities for eligible schools and may not be used for new construction, while QSCBs and BABs provide funding for new construction as well as renovation. 

 

Charter schools as well as traditional public schools may benefit from all of these types of bonds.  I encourage you to consider serving charter schools through these programs.

 

You may use all three of these types of bonds to modernize buildings and convert obsolete non-school buildings into modern school facilities.  I encourage you to design energy-efficient school facilities that meet widely recognized rating systems for green buildings.  Please also consider ways these bonds can improve communities in general.  For instance, some local educational agencies (LEAs) have designed school facilities in a manner intended to facilitate their serving as centers of their communities that are available for non-school purposes outside of regular school hours.  Particularly in a time of economic difficulty, making school facilities go further by designing and providing them for multiple uses makes eminent sense.

 

The benefit of all of these programs is that they help LEAs save money and make their repair, renovation, or construction dollars go further.  Purchasers of QSCBs and QZABs receive a Federal income tax credit.  The U.S. Treasury Department establishes State allocation limits and sets a tax-credit rate for the QSCB and QZAB bond programs that, on average
, equals the amount of interest schools would ordinarily pay on debt.  With the Federal Government covering most or all of the interest on the bonds, LEAs receive a substantial benefit as interest payments typically equal approximately 50 percent of the economic cost of a bond. 

 

The ARRA makes available, to States and certain large LEAs, $11 billion for 2009 and $11 billion for 2010 in QSCB bonding authority for construction, rehabilitation, or repair of a public school facility and for the acquisition of land on which the school facility is to be constructed with QSCB funds.  (An additional $200 million in each of those years goes to the Department of the Interior for assistance to schools operated or supported by the Bureau of Indian Education.)  The QSCB bond allocation authority generally goes to States (not necessarily State educational agencies) based on their shares of Title I Basic Grant funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).  The District of Columbia and possessions of

the United States also receive these allocations.  Possessions other than Puerto Rico, however, receive their shares of the QSCB bonding authority based on their share of the population below the poverty line.  Forty percent of the national QSCBs bonding authority goes directly to the 100 LEAs with the largest number of school-aged children living below the poverty line.  The designated LEAs receive this bond allocation in proportion to their share of ESEA Title I Basic Grant funds.  States with LEAs that receive bond allocations directly from the Federal Government receive a reduced direct allocation. 

 

BABs are bonds that can be used to finance a wide range of projects, including construction and modernization of school facilities.  The BABs program allows municipal bond issuers in 2009 and 2010 to offer an unlimited amount of taxable debt and to elect either to receive a cash subsidy from the Federal Government or to provide bondholders with a tax credit.  Both the payment and the tax credit would be equal to 35 percent of the interest paid on the bonds.  BABs can assist public postsecondary institutions in addition to LEAs.

 

QZABs are another important tool that States and LEAs can use to provide additional resources for improving school facilities and instruction.  The ARRA extends QZABs through 2010.  As you may know, QZABs were first authorized in 1997 and are bonds the Federal Government subsidizes by allowing bondholders to receive tax credits that are approximately equal to the interest that States and communities would pay holders of taxable bonds.  As a result, issuers are generally responsible for repayment of just the principal.  QZABs may now be purchased by any individual or private business.

 

States and LEAs have considerable flexibility in the use of QZABs.  They may be used for rehabilitating or repairing school facilities, purchasing equipment, developing curricula, and training school personnel, but not for new construction.  To meet QZAB eligibility criteria, a public school must be located in either an Empowerment Zone or an Enterprise Community or have at least 35 percent of its students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch under the Federal lunch program (National School Lunch Act).  The school must also have an education program designed in cooperation with business; receive a private contribution (which may be in-kind), the net present value of which is not less than 10 percent of the proceeds of the bond; and have an education plan that is approved by its LEA; and its students must be subject to the same standards and assessments as other students in the LEA.

 

As the following chart shows, previously authorized QZABs are still available.  However, unused funds from the 2007 allocations will expire at the end of this year and, to make use of these allocations, States or municipalities must issue the bonds by December 31, 2009.  If a State does not issue the amount of QZABs allocated by the Federal Government between the calendar year the funds are first made available and the date by which they must be issued, the unused QZAB allocation expires and cannot be used. 

 

QZABs Amount

Calendar year first available

Bonds must be issued by December 31 of the year

$400 million

2007

2009

$400 million

2008

2010

$1.4 billion

2009

2011

$1.4 billion

2010

2012

 

On April 3, 2009, the Treasury Department issued 2008 and 2009 State allocations of QZABs bonding authority and 2009 allocations of QSCBs bonding authority for the States and the 100 large LEAs.  I am enclosing those tables for your information.  I am also enclosing a Fact Sheet prepared by our Department on these bond programs. 

 

If you have questions about this information or these programs, please contact Branch 5 of the Internal Revenue Service, Office of Associate Chief Counsel/Financial Institutions and Products, at 202-622-3980 or Jane Hess of the U.S. Department of Education at 202-401-8292.  I am confident that these bonds can help your communities meet some of their facility needs.

 

Sincerely,

 

/s/

 

Arne Duncan

 

2 Attachments Follow

 

AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009

Qualified School Construction Bonds and

Qualified Zone Academy Bonds

 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) authorized tax-credit bonds for school construction by expanding Qualified Zone Academy Bonds (QZABs) from $400 million annually to $1.4 billion for each of calendar years 2009 and 2010 and authorizing $11.2 billion in Qualified School Construction Bonds (QSCBs) for the first time.  QZABs provide tax credits primarily for school renovation and may not be used for new construction, but QSCBs provide tax credits for new construction as well as renovation. 

 

The U.S. Treasury Department establishes State allocation limits and sets a tax-credit rate for both of these bond programs that, on average, equals the amount of interest schools would ordinarily pay on debt.  Since the Federal Government covers most or all of the interest on these bonds, local educational agencies (LEAs) receive a substantial benefit, as interest payments may typically equal up to 50 percent of the economic cost of a bond. 

 

In addition to QZABs and QSCBs, the ARRA contains other provisions regarding tax-exempt debt and tax-credit programs that entities may use to finance construction of school facilities as well as other types of facilities.  Build America Bonds (BABs), for example, are taxable bonds that can be used to finance a wide range of projects for governmental purposes.  This BABs program allows municipal bond issuers in 2009 and 2010 to offer an unlimited amount of taxable debt and to elect either to receive a cash subsidy from the Federal Government or have it provide bondholders with a tax credit.  Either the payment or the tax credit would be equal to 35 percent of the interest paid on the bonds.  BABs can assist public postsecondary institutions in addition to LEAs.  The Treasury Department’s recent guidance on this new program can be found at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-09-26.pdf.

The benefit of all of these school construction financing tools is that they can help State and local governments save money and make their repair, renovation, modernization, or construction funds go further. 

Basic Facts about Qualified School Construction Bonds

 

Under this new category of tax-credit bonds, the Treasury Department distributes $11 billion of the bond allocation in both 2009 and 2010 among the States and certain large LEAs.  QSCBs are bonds the Federal Government subsidizes by allowing bondholders to receive tax credits that are approximately equal to the interest that States and communities would pay holders of taxable bonds.  As a result, issuers are generally responsible for repayment of just the principal.  States may directly issue the bonds on behalf of eligible schools or they may suballocate authority to issue the bonds within the State. 

 

  • QSCB allocations go to States (not necessarily State educational agencies) based on their share of Title I Basic Grant funds.  The District of Columbia and possessions of the United States also receive these allocations.  Possessions other than Puerto Rico, however, receive their shares of the QSCB bonding authority based on their share of the population below the poverty line.  States with LEAs that receive bond allocations directly from the Federal Government receive a reduced allocation as a result of the allocations described in more detail below. 

 

  • 40 percent of the national QSCB bonding authority goes directly to the 100 LEAs with the largest number of school-aged children living below the poverty line.[1]  The designated LEAs receive this bond allocation in proportion to their shares of Title I Basic Grant funds.  An LEA in this category that receives a direct allocation may reallocate any of its unused QSCB allocations to its State.

 

  • If an allocation to a State is unused for a calendar year, the State may carry it forward to the next calendar year.  In other words, States have up until the end of 2010 to use their 2009 allocation and until the end of 2011 to use their 2010 allocation.

 

  • In addition to the amounts described above, the Department of the Interior/Bureau of Indian Affairs receives $200 million annually in QSCB authority for its school facilities in 2009 and 2010.  Indian tribal governments are qualified issuers.

 

QSCBs are less restrictive in their uses than QZABs.  For a QSCB bond that is issued by a State or local government where a public school is located, 100 percent of available project proceeds must be used for the construction, rehabilitation, or repair of the public school facility.  In addition, a portion of the proceeds of such a bond may be used for the acquisition of land on which a public school facility is to be constructed. 

QSCBs may be purchased by any individual or private business, and used to generate a tax credit against the individual’s or entity’s Federal income taxes.  The Department of the Treasury recently issued initial guidance for the program, which is posted at:  www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-09-35.pdf, that reports the allocation of the annual bond volume among the States and the 100 largest LEAs.

Basic Facts about Qualified Zone Academy Bonds

 

QZABs were first authorized in 1997 and are bonds the Federal Government subsidizes by allowing bondholders to receive tax credits that are approximately equal to the interest that States and communities would pay holders of taxable bonds.  As a result, issuers are generally responsible for repayment of just the principal.  The Treasury Department allocates the authority to issue these bonds to States based on their proportion of the U.S. population living below the poverty line.  States may directly issue the bonds on behalf of eligible schools or they may suballocate authority to issue the bonds within the State.  These bonds may be used only on behalf of schools or programs that:

 

  • are located in an Empowerment Zone or an Enterprise Community; or
  • have a reasonable expectation (as of the date of the bond issuance) that at least 35 percent of their students will be eligible for free or reduced-cost lunches under the National School Lunch Act. 

 

To benefit from a QZAB, an eligible school must also:

  • have an education program designed in cooperation with business;
  • receive a private contribution (which may be in-kind), the net present value of which is not less than 10 percent of the proceeds of the bond;
  • have an education plan that is approved by its LEA; and
  • subject its students to the same s
    tandards and assessments as other students in the LEA.

 

QZABs  may not be used for new construction but may be used for the following activities:

  • renovating and repairing buildings;
  • investing in equipment and up-to-date technology;
  • developing challenging curricula; and
  • training quality teachers.

In past years, QZABs could be purchased only by banks, insurance companies, and other companies engaged in the business of lending money.  Effective October 2008, however, QZABs may be purchased by any individual or private business.  The Department of the Treasury has issued recent guidance for the extended program available at:  http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-09-30.pdf.  Existing ED guidance on QZABs is available at:   www.ed.gov/programs/
qualifiedzone/faq.html.

TABLES FOR STATE ALLOCATIONS OF QUALIFIED SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION BONDS:

 

2009 Allocations to States of Volume Cap for

Qualified School Construction Bonds

 

(Net of Allocations to Large Local Educational Agencies)

 

State/Territory

Total Allocation by State/Territory

Alabama

118,776,000

Alaska

29,784,000

Arizona

186,292,000

Arkansas

113,443,000

California

773,525,000

Colorado

87,147,000

Connecticut

105,092,000

Delaware

29,784,000

District of Columbia

0

Florida

106,806,000

Georgia

201,062,000

Hawaii

0

Idaho

37,665,000

Illinois

244,435,000

Indiana

177,861,000

Iowa

64,252,000

Kansas

79,589,000

Kentucky

135,132,000

Louisiana

131,622,000

Maine

42,074,000

Maryland

50,354,000

Massachusetts

144,783,000

Michigan

296,860,000

Minnesota

75,850,000

Mississippi

132,443,000

Missouri

141,441,000

Montana

31,623,000

Nebraska

32,343,000

Nevada

6,767,000

New Hampshire

29,784,000

New Jersey

223,279,000

New Mexico

64,602,000

New York

192,049,000

North Carolina

187,167,000

North Dakota

25,740,000

Ohio

267,112,000

Oklahoma

87,018,000

Oregon

112,886,000

State/Territory

Total Allocation by State/Territory

Pennsylvania

315,737,000

Rhode Island

22,062,000

South Carolina

131,364,000

South Dakota

29,784,000

Tennessee

121,738,000

Texas

538,585,000

Utah

50,962,000

Vermont

24,845,000

Virginia

191,077,000

Washington

164,111,000

West Virginia

78,219,000

Wisconsin

98,589,000

Wyoming

24,080,000

 

 

American Samoa

10,748,000

Guam

10,980,000

Northern Marianas

10,703,000

Puerto Rico

0

Virgin Islands

9,974,000

 

 

Total

6,600,000,000

 


[1] The law also permits the Secretary of Education to select up to 25 additional LEAs to receive allocations from this 40 percent share, based on such factors as a low level of resources for school construction and enrollment growth.  For 2009 the Secretary has decided not to select additional LEAs.

Inside the Mind of Arne Duncan

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, charter schools, Gates Foundation, stimulus, teachers

The popular parlor game these days is trying to figure our the inner psyche of our EdSec, Arne Duncan.  Anyone who is anyone is trying to read nuanced meanings into everything he says or does.  We scour over this internal emails to ED staff, his stump speeches, the groups he speaks to (and those he doesn’t), where is going on his listening tour (and who he will listen to), and just about every stop in between.

Today, though, we are provided with two interesting insights into what makes the good ole EdSec tick.  The first are his words themselves.  For those who missed it, Duncan spoke at the National Press Club today, riffing on a whole host of issues.  The “buzz” coming out of the event is that the EdSec is pro-charter schools, seeking to lift the caps on the number of such schools.  At least that is what has been filling up Eduflack’s Tweet deck this afternoon.   The National Alliance of Public Charter Schools is also making the full clip of the “pro-charter” remarks available here.  
The leading ladies over at Politics K-12 have a more detailed description of the high points of Duncan’s NPC remarks here.
Perhaps more interesting is Eddy Ramirez’ piece over at US News & World Report today, which takes a closer look at what Duncan did as head of Chicago Public Schools to help turn around the city’s true problem-child buildings.  We’re talking closures, firing entire staffs, and bringing in third-party organizations to run the schools.  In the piece, Ramirez reflects on Duncan’s recent remarks to turn around the 1,000 lowest-performing schools in the United States — just 1 percent of our total schools — we can “move the needle” and “change the lives of tens of millions of underserved children.”
The CPS experience is interesting, particularly when one factors in the large contingent of Gates Foundation and NewSchool Venture Fund alums currently running around the seventh floor of 400 Maryland Avenue.  But like most good pieces, the USNWR piece, along with Politics K-12 provides most parties their own view on the future.  Some see the future of charter schools.  Some see school management companies.  Some are even going to see the opportunity for the teachers unions to re-inject themselves into the process and demonstrate their relevance in school improvement efforts. 
Insight is in the eye of the reader.  But no matter how you look at it, it is safe to say that Duncan is not looking to defend the status quo.  Big changes are a comin’.  If not through economic stimulus, then through the policies and programs that are soon to follow.  Duncan’s built a great deal of capital these past four-plus months defending the economic stimulus package and serving as an Administration all-around go-to guy.  Those chits are going to come due soon.  And the EdSec is laying the groundwork for some new ideas and for some legitimate rockin’ of the ed policy boat.
     

Changing the Game on College Funding

Eduflack High School, higher ed, Students, Workforce

We have all heard the stories (and jokes) about college students who are on the five-, six-, or even seven-year plan.  Those students who love their college years so much, that they simply never want to leave those glory days.  Some maximize the financial aid packages available to them, some have generous families, and others just find a way to stick around their hopeful alma mater.

What few tend to talk about is, for most public colleges and universities, these professional students are big business.  Most state institutions of higher education receive public support based on enrollment numbers.  So while a typical student who graduates in the expected four years would could for four “credits” when it comes to state dollars, that student on the six-year plan counts for six.  Assuming new student enrollment numbers (both freshmen and transfers) remain steady, or increase, every year, those who stick around for an extra year or three can become a financial boon to the institution at which they are camping out.  For some institutions, there is little incentive to see students actually graduate.  As long as they remain enrolled, they are cherished.
But how do such “long-term” learning plans meet with our current calls for educational return on investment, plans to boost the number of U.S. postsecondary degreeholders, or expectations that today’s college students will fill the workforce needs of tomorrow?  Unfortunately, they often don’t.  Many students who extend their stays don’t graduate, leaving with more than a half-decade of experience and memories, but no degree to show for it.  As the nation looks to measure the effectiveness of states and their high schools based on our ability to graduate students from secondary school in four years (those who gain a diploma four years after starting ninth grade), we have few rubrics to really measure the effectiveness of postsecondary education.
Until now.
Over at USA Today, Mary Beth Marklein reports on a growing trend to link college graduation to college funding.  It seems like a simple idea long overdue.  Higher education spending coming from state government would be tied to the number of students graduating (or at least the number completing courses).  The desire is results.  If states are going to support public colleges and universities, they want their own ROI.  They want assurances that those taxpayer dollars are resulting in degree holders prepared to hold the jobs and contribute to the economy of the state that has been subsidizing their education for the past four or more years.
USA Today spotlights a couple of states that are looking to break new ground on college funding ROI, including:
* Ohio, which seeks to tie 100 percent of funding to “course and degree completion”
* Indiana, which is traveling a similar path to Ohio
* Louisiana, looking to tie 25 percent of funding to “student success”
* Missouri, basing finance for allied health and other programs on how students do on licensing exams
* Washington, funding community and technical colleges based on specific student performance hurdles
This is not a new trend, but it is taking on greater intensity.  More than half of states have tried such ROI measures over the last three decades.  Nearly half of those who have tried it have abandoned it.  Some of the best results can be seen in states such as Florida, where tough ROI measures have actually resulted in a 43 percent increase in graduation rates and an 18 percent increase in enrollment for the Sunshine State’s community colleges over the last decade.
In the coming years, we are likely to see more states looking to go down the path of the Buckeye State, particularly if Ohio successfully implements it 100-percent funding plan.  Just a few months ago, President Obama set a national goal that the United States would have the highest percentage of postsecondary degree holders in the world by the year 2020.  And the feds are looking to invest $2.5 billion into efforts to boost college completion rates.  If we are going to hit those goals, we need to turn out significantly more college graduates.  To do so, we need to transform college goers into college completers.  And to do that, we need to hold our institutions of higher education accountable (particularly since placing responsibility solely with the students has so far done us little good).
These are bold moves by state legislatures and state higher education boards.  Accountability is a tough issue, particularly when there are so many “reasons” why one fails to complete a degree path.  ROI is a tough issue, particularly with so many that believe the simple pursuit of higher education is the reward itself.  College graduation rates are a tough issue, particularly when we so struggle nationally with our ability to improve high school graduation and college-going rates, particularly with historically disadvantaged students.
But the current times call for bold moves.  There is no question that postsecondary education is quickly becoming a non-negotiable for economic success in the 21st century.  We also know that employers value the degree, and not simply the attendance record, when it comes to evaluating a potential job candidate’s educational background.  If we view state investment in higher education as an investment in strengthening the state’s economy and the state’s future, such linkages between funding and completion make sense.  Taxpayers are subsidizing these education experiences.  They have a right to demand some return on that investment.  And we all should have the expectation that when our sibling or child or spouse enrolls in postsecondary education (be it a two- or four-year institution) the ultimate goal is securing a diploma.  That’s the goal.  We should measure against it.

Answerin’ to Mr. Miller

Eduflack Arne Duncan, national standards, NCLB, Reading First, stimulus

Sometimes, what you don’t say can be as important as what you do say.  Case in point, EdSec Arne Duncan’s testimony yesterday before the House Education and Labor Committee.  Emphasizing current efforts to effectively use American Recovery and Reinvestment Act dollars, Duncan focused on a number of issues in the free-form part of the discussion, including topics such as restraint and student loans.

The full rundown can be found over at the Committee’s website, complete with video links to testimony and key questions.  Some of the highlights from Duncan’s testimony:
“Many of you have heard me say that I believe education is the civil rights issue of our time. I truly believe every child is entitled to a high-quality education. I will work closely with the Office of Civil Rights to make sure that we properly review compliance in all programs and policymaking.”
“If we are going to be successful in rebuilding our economy, our early childhood programs need to prepare our youngest children for kindergarten so they’re ready to start reading and learning, our K-12 schools need to make sure our students have all of the academic knowledge and skills that they need to enter college or the workforce, and our higher education system needs to offer whatever advanced learning students need to be successful in a career, whether they will become a plumber, a teacher, or a business executive. As federal policymakers, we need to improve preparation for college and expand college access and completion by increasing financial aid so that students of all income levels can pay for college without taking on a mountain of debt.”
“States must build data systems that can track student performance from one year to the next, from one school to another, so that those students and their parents know when they are making progress and when they need extra attention. This information must also be put in the hands of educators so they can use it to improve instruction. Right now, according to the Data Quality Campaign (DQC), Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, and Utah are the only states that are reporting to have comprehensive data systems meeting the basic elements of a good system.”

“I don’t want to invest in the status quo. I want states and districts to take bold actions that will lead directly to the improvement in student learning. I want local leaders to find change agents who can fix these schools. I want them to provide incentives for their best teachers to take on the challenge of

teaching in these schools. And where appropriate, I want them to create partnerships with charter school operators with a track record of success. I want superintendents to be aggressive in taking the difficult step of shutting down a failing school and replacing it with one they know will work.”

“Our agenda from early childhood through 12th grade is focused on helping states do the right thing. And that’s appropriate because States are responsible for establishing systems of education through the 12th grade. It’s our role to make it a national priority to reform schools and help states and districts do that.”

Eduflack bookended the two quotes in particular because I find them the most intriguing of what was said.  The first is Duncan’s continued commitment to the notion that a high-quality public education is an American civil right.  Over the years, the U.S. Supreme Court has disagreed, determining that education is a topic best left to the states and the localities (at least according to the U.S. Constitution).  We’ve seen school equity fights in states like California and New York recently, but with limited results.  SCOTUS hasn’t really heard the issue since the Rodriguez decision in 1973.  Perhaps the EdSec is daring a forward-looking advocacy or policy organization to bring the issue before the Supreme Court yet again.  The time may be ripe.
Duncan also focused on the issue of “helping states do the right thing.”  Eduflack couldn’t agree more, but can’t help but notice Duncan’s team seems to be a little light in the state understanding department, as highlighted in our post yesterday. 
What was noticeably absent from Duncan’s testimony, though, was any mention of No Child Left Behind reauthorization.  Certainly, it is an issue that both he and Chairman Miller are all too aware of.  Maybe they’ve already had deep and intimate conversations on the topic, and thus didn’t need to talk for the sake of the public record.  Maybe Duncan believes his four pillars of the Duncan Education Department suffices as the blueprint for where we are headed.  Maybe we believe that ARRA and the President’s budget are all that we need to know when it comes to the plan for Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization this fall or next spring.
Also missing from the general love-fest over at Chairman Miller’s committee was discussion of two specific policy matters.  There was no talk of the Reading First successor bill circulating around town (which Eduflack has dubbed, Yes I Can Read), though plans to expand the Striving Readers program ten-fold did warrant a mention.  And there was no talk at all about the national education standards drafts that Achieve is rumored to be delivering to the EdSec in the coming weeks for review, discussion, and debate.
All in all, Duncan’s performance was just a regularly scheduled check-up with the Committee, a chance to show that ARRA plans are moving forward, key concerns are being addressed, and no additional attention or worry needs to be paid to the U.S. Department of Education.  The trains are running fine.  There is nothing to see here.
Me, I’m waiting for the questions that have yet to be asked.  What’s in store for our federal accountability measures?  What improvements will be made to NCLB?  What’s next for federal reading investment?  Are we really heading to national standards?  What are our expectations from these new data systems?  Are we really going to turn back the regs on four-year high school graduation rates?  And how do we ensure that every low-performing and hard-to-staff school has effective teachers leading the classroom when the feds are only contributing eight cents of every educational dollar spent?  Lots of questions.  Hopefully, the answers aren’t too far in the offing.
On a related note, I have to give kudos to Chairman Miller’s staff and the way that they make information accessible to the average parent and the average blogger.  Almost immediately, the Committee has transcripts of the prepared testimony, along with video segments of the hearing, up on the Web.  For us former Hill rats, it may not be a big deal to watch a congressional hearing, but the Committee’s use of technology really throws the sunshine on the process and improves understanding and access.  Congressman McKeon and his staff were always terrific about getting information out to interested parties, and it is good to see Chairman Miller has taken it several steps further.

Who’s Speaking for the States at ED?

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, NCLB, NGA, stimulus

In what seems like a little-publicized announcement of a major appointment, EdSec Arne Duncan has selected Thelma Melendez de Santa Ana, superintendent of Pomona (CA) Unified School District to be the U.S. Department of Education’s new assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education.  The choice seems to be a solid one for ED, the good doctor is a former bilingual classroom teacher, middle school assistant principal, elementary school principal, and former school district director of instruction of elementary and middle schools.  She is also a Broad Superintendents Academy alum.

Her focus on middle schools, in particular, gives Eduflack a great deal of hope.  Often, OESE focuses exclusively on elementary instruction.  To date, we’ve seen a great number of appointments at ED focused on secondary issues such as STEM and college readiness.  So an assistant secretary with a strong background in the middle grades offers some real hope to those of us who realize that improving high school graduation rates and college-going rates is a task best completed in middle school.  (In fact, once a student gets to high school, the die is usually already cast.)
But the announcement, in the context of other ED appointments, does cause Eduflack (and I’m sure many others) a great deal of pause.  As we’ve hashed and rehashed many times over, the economic stimulus package placed a great deal of responsibility and influence with our states and our state education agencies.  The State Fiscal Stabilization Fund is dispersed entirely through the SEAs.  The same will be true of the soon-to-be-rolled-out Race to the Top Fund.  In fact, much of the EdSec’s plans to improve chronically underperforming schools rests in SEAs doing new things through the Race to the Top.
And then we get into issues like state data systems, increased accountability measures, continued AYP focus, and a stronger reliance on Title I and IDEA distribution streams to drive school improvement.  All run through the states.  All require a keen understanding of how to effectively use the power of the SEA (and how to avoid the pitfalls and roadblocks that often stymie states from exactly real, lasting improvements in our schools).
No question about it.  The future of public education in the United States rests, in large part, with state decisionmakers.  Collectively, governors, state legislators, and chief state school officers will be the drivers of improvement or the obstacles to it, serving as the defenders of the status quo.  Regardless, states will be driving, navigating, and even filling the tank.
Despite this realization, there seems to be few, if any, experienced voices for the states in the U.S. Department of Education.  We have a number of superintendents and those who have worked for the LEAs.  We have higher education pros, particularly those representing the community colleges.  We have strong players who have come from Capitol Hill, think tanks and advocacy organizations, and leading philanthropies.  But who is speaking for the states, at least as a voice of experience?
Currently, that responsibility seems to be a one-woman-band of sorts.  Judy Wurtzel, formerly of the Aspen Institute and the Learning First Alliance, has been running point, providing technical assistance to the states on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (and has recently announced she is remaining at ED).  But where is the breadth and depth when it comes to those who understand the complexities of state education policy or those who are familiar with how states effectively disperse federal dollars (particularly Title I dollars) to local districts?
In recent months, we have heard a great deal about those external organizations who hold significant influence with the EdSec and leaders at ED.  Tops among them seem to the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association.  Both orgs understand the challenges of the SEAs and how federal policy gets translated by the states and implemented by the localities.  They know how to hold those in the education chain accountable, both for how money is spent and how students perform.  Yet we have no former chief state school officers working out of ED.  We have no governors or top education aides to the governors.  The closest we have seem to be state legislators who are working as deputy assistant secretaries or special assistants.
Hopefully, CCSSO and NGA will remain close behind the throne, ensuring that the states have strong advocates, both in terms of the stimulus and upcoming ESEA reauthorization.  Without a strong advocate for the states, and a strong understanding for how those SEAs operate, the transition from federal policy to local implementation can be a difficult one.  We need strong hands at the state level, setting policy, building budgets, and driving change.  But we also need strong voices at ED ensuring those hands are getting the resources necessary to do what we are demanding.
We can’t make lasting student achievement gains and school transformations on a school-by-school, district-by-district basis only.  Real improvement happens at the state level, with best practice rippling across the state quickly and efficiently.  Someone needs to make sure that voice is heard as federal education policy debates move forward.  As we address accountability, data systems, Title I, and other such issues, state buy-in and state support is key.  We need to ensure that voice is heard, and heard clearly, at the federal table.  If that isn’t going to happen from the inside, it falls to those outside groups to speak loudly for their members.  Not to put added pressure on Gene Wilhoit and Dane Linn, but it really is game on now.

Measuring Opportunities to Learn

Eduflack Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, AYP, NAEP, Students

If the white smoke coming out of the U.S. Department is any indication, we have decided that the core tenets of No Child Left Behind will continue to drive policy.  In recent months, EdSec Duncan and his team have constructed the four pillars of their education platform, the cornerstones that we can expect to see at the heart of any NCLB reauthorization coming this year or next.  For those choosing not to pay attention, those pillars are (according to the folks on Maryland Avenue):

* Implementing college and career-ready standards and assessments
* Creating comprehensive data systems that track students throughout their education career and track teachers back to schools of education so we can better understand which programs are producing teachers that make a difference
* Recruiting, preparing, and rewarding outstanding teachers — paying more to teachers who work in tough schools
* Turning around chronically underperforming schools
Essentially, Duncan and company are calling for every student to have an equal opportunity to learn.  Every child should have an outstanding teacher.  We need to collect better data, establish better standards, and continue our vigilant assessment efforts to ensure a high-quality education is had by all.  And we need to identify those schools where it is not happening, and take the immediate steps to turn it around.
You’ll get no argument from Eduflack on any of that.  All are important.  All should be priorities.  All are essential if we are to continue our forward momentum on student achievement gains and begin to address the persistent problem evidenced by unmovable achievement gap.  But it is as essential as the ED talking points make it seem?
According to a new report issued by the Schott Foundation for Public Education today, the answer is no.  In its Lost Opportunity study, the Schott Foundation looked at all 50 states and their ability to provide a public education system that is both moderately proficient and high access.  To measure proficiency, they looked at 8th grade NAEP reading scores.  For access, the looked at NCES data on the likelihood that a historically disadvantaged student would attend a top quartile high school in the state. 
The results will surprise a great number of people.  Only 16 percent of states — just eight of them — are providing a moderately proficient, high-access public education to all students.  Vermont is tops in the nation, followed by Maine, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Virginia.
Sixteen states provided a moderately proficient education, but provided low access; 17 states provided low proficiency, but high access.  And at the bottom of the list, Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, Rhode Island, Texas, West Virginia, and District of Columbia are providing both low proficiency and low access, with DC scoring lowest in both categories to be the big “winner” in this competition.
What is most surprising about the data is what we have to settle for when it comes to our definition of proficiency and access.  The rankings are comparative.  We have obviously have no states where we have 100-percent student proficiency or true equal access to a high-quality public education.  In fact, on proficiency, the top score is 43 percent (held by Massachusetts), meaning that nearly 60 percent of students are below proficient in 8th grade reading.  Yet that is the gold standard in the country.  By comparison, states are providing a moderately proficient education if they can get less than a third (32 percent) of their 8th graders at proficient or better in reading.
Same is true on the access side.  High-access states are those that essentially provide a 50-percent chance at equal access.  Because of some very real and tangible struggles many states have in providing true equity to all students, getting it right half the time is now the measure of success, by comparison.
What does it all mean?  To paraphrase from Robert Frost, we have many, many miles to go before we sleep.  There are no states that are truly doing it right, not when 40 percent is the gold standard.  Every state in the union has work to do when it comes to providing a high-quality, high-equity education to all students.  Every state has work to do when it comes to ensuring that historically disadvantaged students have the same access to the American educational dream as their white, non-Hispanic counterparts.  Every state has work to do when it comes to ensuring every student is on the path to success, regardless or race, socioeconomic status, or zip code.  Every state just has work to do.
We cannot close the achievement gap in this country without first addressing the opportunity gap.  Students can’t succeed if they aren’t afforded access to the schools, teachers, and resources that put them on the path to success.  That’s why information like that found in Lost Opportunity is so important.  By taking a new cut at data we have seen before (NAEP and NCES data), Schott is providing us a new perspective of our progress in education reform and the hard road ahead for continued improvement.  (As I’ve noted previously, Eduflack has worked with the Schott Foundation on its Opportunity to Learn efforts.)
The Lost Opportunity report is definitely worth a look, particularly when you get under the hood and look at the individual states and how they fare when it comes to quality, equity, and access to resources.  The data isn’t pretty, but it is fascinating.  All of the information, including the individual state reports, can be found at www.otlstatereport.org.  
Why this study?  Why now?  The answer to that is best left to Dr. John Jackson, the President and CEO of the Schott Foundation.  In releasing the report now, two days after the 55th anniversary of the landmark Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision, he said:
“This serves as a wake-up call to every governor, legislature, state education commissioner, and schools superintendent that falsely believes we are getting the job done in our classrooms.  According to their own data, only eight states are providing a moderately proficient, high-access public education to all.  After a decade of leaving no child behind, we are finding that an entire generation of students is again all but forgotten.”
Here’s hoping we are listening to the call, and ready to act on it.